MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915635372 · doi:10.1080/09513590.2019.1580259

What is the optimal timing of embryo transfer when there are only one or two embryos at cleavage stage?

2019· article· en· W2915635372 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGynecological Endocrinology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsTranslational Research in OncologyUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbryoEmbryo transferCleavage (geology)AndrologyStage (stratigraphy)BiologyCell biologyGynecologyChemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today, most IVF programs have moved to blastocyst transfer but there is still uncertainty regarding when to transfer if there are only one or two embryos at the cleavage stage. The aim of this study was to compare the pregnancy rate of day 3 transfers vs. blastocyst stage transfers in patients who had only one or two embryos on day 3. We conducted a retrospective study of 102 patients with one or two cleavage stage embryos that had their embryos transferred on day 3 and 429 patients had their embryos cultured to day 5 for transfer. The number of mature oocytes (4.0 vs 4.6, p = NS) and number of cleavage stage embryos on day 3 was similar in the two groups (1.3 vs. 1.5, p = NS). The clinical pregnancy rate per retrieval (22% vs. 24.6%, p= NS) and the ongoing pregnancy rate per retrieval (20% vs. 20.2%, p = NS) was comparable between the groups. Fifty seven (13.2%) of the patients had cleavage embryo arrest and did not have an embryo to transfer on day 5. We conclude that the cumulative pregnancy rate is the same for patients with 1–2 cleavage stage embryos regardless of whether the embryo is transferred on day 3 or day 5.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.264
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it